Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Two Questions For School-Choice Funding After Carson, Nicole Stelle Garnett, John A. Meiser

Journal Articles

In a series of recent cases, the Supreme Court of the United States has made clear that the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause prohibits religious discrimination in public benefit programs. That is, when the government creates a public benefit program, the Free Exercise Clause prohibits it from excluding private entities from participating because of their religious character or status or because they engage in religious conduct. This essay addresses two questions raised left unresolved by these cases and flags a third. The first question is, what is private? The religious nondiscrimination principle applies only when the government aids private conduct. …

The Erie Scoop, Barry Cushman

Journal Articles

APRIL 25, 1938 WAS A BUSY DAY at the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court decided twelve cases by full opinion and six cases per curiam, granted certiorari in two cases and denied it in twenty-eight others, and denied two petitions for rehearing. The decision that received the most attention sustained a challenge to a directive of Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace setting maximum rates to be charged by commission men working at the Kansas City Stockyards. The Court found that the regulated parties had not been afforded a “full,” “fair and open hearing” before the rate …

Going En Banc, Randy J. Kozel

Journal Articles

This Article examines the law of en banc review in the federal courts of appeals. It explores key doctrinal questions and advances a theory that maintains the primacy of three judge panels by focusing the en banc process on a specialized set of institutional tasks.

Originalism's Difference?, Sherif Girgis

Journal Articles

From the Aritcle

My topic is whether originalism makes any practical difference to constitutional reasoning and outcomes, relative to other methods of interpretation.

INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1945

I. JUSTICE SCALIA'S VISION OF CONTRASTS .................. 1949

II. THE BREAKDOWN OF CONTRASTS ........................... 1952

III. REMAINING CONTRASTS: REAL BUT ELUSIVE TO THEORY....................................................... 1961

IV. THE CHAMBERS ORIGINALISM DIFFERENCE .................. 1966

CONCLUSION: LOOKING AHEAD ................................ 1973

New Challenges To Judicial Federalism, James A. Gardner

Journal Articles

The theory of judicial federalism holds that state constitutions are jurisprudentially independent from the U.S. Constitution, and that state supreme courts consequently may, and often should, interpret state constitutions differently from how the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the federal Constitution. As the U.S. Supreme Court increasingly turns back to the states important decisions of constitutional policy, such as the scope of reproductive rights or the nature and content of limitations on partisan gerrymandering, state constitutional law looms ever larger as a potential ground for resolution of these issues.

The conditions for a revival of judicial federalism today, however, are far …

New Hurdles To Redistricting Reform: State Evasion, Moore, And Partisan Gerrymandering, Manoj Mate

Journal Articles

Proponents of fair districting reforms continue to face challenges in seeking to address the problem of partisan gerrymandering. Even in states that have successfully enacted redistricting reforms, state actors have been able to evade compliance, and state courts have been unable to guarantee fair districts. In addition, the Supreme Court’s decision in Moore v. Harper could also limit state court efforts to guarantee fair districts. This Article argues that state evasion and Moore threaten to undermine the efficacy of fair districting norms recognized by state courts or enacted through either state political processes. Moore could create a one-way ratchet by …

An Exegesis Of The Meaning Of Dobbs: Despotism, Servitude, & Forced Birth, Athena D. Mutua

Journal Articles

The Dobbs decision has been leaked. Gathered outside of New York City's St. Patrick's Old Cathedral, pro-choice protesters chant: "Not the church, not the state, the people must decide their fate."

A white man wearing a New York Fire Department sweatshirt and standing on the front steps responds: "l am the people, l am the people, l am the people, the people have decided, the court has decided, you lose . . . . You have no choice. Not your body, not your choice, your body is mine and you're having my baby."

Despicable but not unexpected,³ this man's comments …

Presidential Adjudication, Emily S. Bremer

Journal Articles

Over the last several decades, administrative law has recognized an expanding role for the President in controlling agency decision making. Agency adjudication—and especially formal hearings conducted under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)—have been viewed as properly insulated from this development. To protect due process, the APA established a regime for ensuring that competent, impartial Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) preside over formal hearings. The regime includes two apparent levels of for-cause removal protection for ALJs combined with robust agency head control over the policymaking aspects of formal adjudication. Today, the regime is in peril because it appears to be inconsistent with …

Originalism’S Age Of Ironies, Sherif Girgis

Journal Articles

From the Article

Guns, abortion, religious establishments, Presidential power: While today’s Supreme Court identifies as originalist, it has settled constitutional questions on these and many other issues using history and tradition, not just original meaning. Scholars debate whether this trend can be squared with originalism. Last Term, the originalist Justices joined the fray. A close look at their dueling opinions reveals the divergent paths that originalists take when the method is pressed to its limits. It turns out that the purer one’s originalism at the level of theory, the less it constrains judges in practice. That is especially true for …

Ideological Leanings In Likely Pro Bono Biglaw Amicus Briefs In The United States Supreme Court, Derek T. Muller

Journal Articles

Each term, the United States Supreme Court receives hundreds of amicus briefs filed in merits docket cases. Many of the largest law firms file amicus briefs before the United States Supreme Court. These amicus briefs are often pro bono, which means the clients do not pay for the firm to file the brief. That pro bono work can quickly total millions of dollars of legal briefing subsidized by the law firm. And pro bono work often reflects the law firm’s desire to work for its prior commitments to what it identifies as the "public good."

Controversies have arisen in recent …

State Sovereign Immunity And The New Purposivism, Anthony J. Bellia Jr., Bradford R. Clark

Journal Articles

Since the Constitution was first proposed, courts and commentators have debated the extent to which it alienated the States’ preexisting sovereign immunity from suit by individuals. During the ratification period, these debates focused on the language of the citizen-state diversity provisions of Article III. After the Supreme Court read these provisions to abrogate state sovereign immunity in Chisholm v. Georgia, Congress and the States adopted the Eleventh Amendment to prohibit this construction. The Court subsequently ruled that States enjoy sovereign immunity independent of the Eleventh Amendment, which neither conferred nor diminished it. In the late twentieth-century, Congress began enacting statutes …

Court-Packing In Context, Barry Cushman

Journal Articles

From the Introduction

There is a curious lacuna in the literature on the Court-packing crisis of 1937. The proposal for reform of the federal judiciary that received the most attention and consideration in that year was, of course, president Franklin D. Roosevelt’s proposal to enlarge the membership of the Supreme Court from nine to fifteen justices.1 Yet, both before and throughout the battle over the president’s “Court-packing plan,” members of Congress introduced a wide variety of alternative measures for addressing their dissatisfaction with recent Supreme Court decisions invalidating various state and federal laws designed to relieve economic distress and stimulate …

Living Traditionalism, Sherif Girgis

Journal Articles

From the Article

This Article offers the first comprehensive analysis of the Court’s living traditionalism, which turns out to include scores of cases spanning every subject and Justices of every stripe. Next, the Article identifies a fundamental but previously unrecognized tension in the method itself: If the Court gives living-traditionalist cases full weight as precedent, it defeats the reasons for using the method at all. Put another way, it is incoherent to treat political practices as a ratchet: capable of moving law in one direction (e.g., against a right in 2022) but not the other (in favor of the right …

Justice Breyer And The Establishment Clause: Notes On "Appeasement," "Legal Judgment," And "Divisiveness", Richard W. Garnett

Journal Articles

Stephen G. Breyer served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States for nearly three decades. And yet, during his long career and notwithstanding his wide-ranging interests, he never authored a majority opinion resolving a dispute about the meaning of that Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Nevertheless, Justice Breyer’s writings and record regarding the no-establishment rule are distinctive in at least three ways.

First, there is the fact that he did not vote uniformly with his more secularist colleagues in divided Establishment Clause cases. That is, he often resisted the stricter applications of the no-establishment rule endorsed by …

"Grievously And Egregiously Wrong": American Abortion Jurisprudence, Alyson M. Cox, O. Carter Snead

Journal Articles

This paper considers American abortion jurisprudence in the light of the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. We conclude that Casey and its precedent case of Roe are egregiously wrong, have no grounding in the Constitution, and are unjustifiable on stare decisis grounds. This article argues that the Court should take this opportunity to overturn Roe and Casey once and for all, and restore to the political branches of government the authority to enact laws and policies that offer comprehensive protections to mothers, children (born and unborn), and families. Just as both parties made …

Why The Equal-Protection Case For Abortion Rights Rises Or Falls With Roe's Rationale, Sherif Girgis

Journal Articles

From the Post

For nearly 50 years, legal scholars who favor Roe v. Wade’s outcome but scorn its rationale have tried to find firmer footing for a constitutional abortion right. Roe and its follow-on case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, claimed to derive such a right from the Due Process Clause. That proved deeply controversial, for reasons laid out in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Most prochoice critics of Roe would have relied instead on the Equal Protection Clause. Scores of essays on abortion rights have endorsed, developed, and refined the equality arguments over decades. A book of proposals about …

Government Employee Speech And Forum Analysis, Randy J. Kozel

Journal Articles

This Article analyzes the institution of government employment as a nonpublic forum. Forum analysis offers a framework for bringing the doctrine of government employee speech into alignment with broader First Amendment principles. It also sharpens the theoretical contours of employee speech law by underscoring the need for vigilance against ordained orthodoxy while acknowledging the necessity of managerial discretion over institutional operations. Characterizing government employment as a nonpublic forum circumvents problematic questions like whether employee speech has provoked an adverse reaction. The proper inquiry, in the employment context as in other nonpublic forums, is whether a speech restriction is reasonable and …

The Illiberalization Of American Election Law: A Study In Democratic Deconsolidation, James A. Gardner

Journal Articles

For many years, the dominant view among American election law scholars has been that the U.S. Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisprudence of democratic practice got off to a promising start during the mid-twentieth century but has since then slowly deteriorated into incoherence. In light of the United States’ recent turn toward populist authoritarianism, that view needs to be substantially revised. With the benefit of hindsight, it now appears that the Supreme Court has functioned, in its management of the constitutional jurisprudence of democracy, as a vector of infection—a kind of super-spreader of populist authoritarianism.

There is, sadly, nothing unusual these days …

Roe And Casey Were Grievously Wrong And Should Be Overruled, Charles J. Cooper, Richard W. Garnett, Peter A. Patterson, Brian W. Barnes, John D. Ohlendorf

Journal Articles

This essay, based on an amicus curiae brief filed in the Dobbs case, explains that the Roe and Casey decisions were "grievously wrong", that no traditional stare decisis considerations weigh in favor of retaining them, and that they should be overruled.

Dissenting From The Bench, Christine M. Venter

Journal Articles

This paper examines the oral dissents of Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg from the year 2000 to the times of their respective deaths. It explores the concept and purpose of oral dissent and details the kinds of cases in which each justice was more likely to orally dissent. The paper analyzes the kinds of rhetoric that each justice used to refer to their subject matter, and argues that Scalia's rhetoric evinces a view of the law as "autonomous", operating independently of the facts of the case. In contrast, Ginsburg's view espouses a view of the law as responsive …

Brnovich V. Dnc: Election Litigation Migrates From Federal Courts To The Political Process, Derek T. Muller

Journal Articles

We are in a time of public skepticism over elections. The losing side doubts the fairness of the outcome, attributing the loss to suppression, fraud, foreign influence, or late-breaking changes to laws—some “true reason” outside the legitimate political process why a preferred candidate failed. The winning side is a sour contest or a sore loser away from doubting the legitimacy of the election.

It’s hard to tell whether the sharp rise in litigation over elections is the cause or the effect. Major political parties are spending more money than ever on lawyers and litigation in federal elections, from $7.5 million …

Untangling Entanglement, Stephanie H. Barclay

Journal Articles

The Court has increasingly signaled its interest in taking a more historical approach to the Establishment Clause. And in its recent American Legion decision, the Supreme Court strongly suggested that the three-prong Lemon test is essentially dead letter. Such a result would make sense for the first two prongs of the Lemon test about secular purpose and the effects. Many scholars have observed that these aspects of the prong are judicial creations far afield of the Establishment Clause history. But what of the entanglement prong of the test? If we rejected all applications of this prong of the analysis, would …

Statutory Interpretation, Administrative Deference, And The Law Of Stare Decisis, Randy J. Kozel

Journal Articles

This Article examines three facets of the relationship between statutory interpretation and the law of stare decisis: judicial interpretation, administrative interpretation, and interpretive methodology. In analyzing these issues, I emphasize the role of stare decisis in pursuing balance between past and present. That role admits of no distinction between statutory and constitutional decisions, calling into question the practice of giving superstrong deference to judicial interpretations of statutes. The pursuit of balance also suggests that one Supreme Court cannot bind future Justices to a wide-ranging interpretive methodology. As for rules requiring deference to administrative interpretations of statutes and regulations, they are …

Special Justifications, Randy J. Kozel

Journal Articles

The Supreme Court commonly asks whether there is a “special justification” for departing from precedent. In this Response, which is part of a Constitutional Commentary symposium on Settled Versus Right: A Theory of Precedent, I examine the existing law of special justifications and describe its areas of uncertainty. I also compare the Court’s current doctrine with a revised approach to special justifications designed to separate the question of overruling from deeper disagreements about legal interpretation. The aspiration is to establish precedent as a unifying force that enhances the impersonality of the Court and of the law, promoting values the Justices …

The Security Court, Matthew J. Steilen

Journal Articles

The Supreme Court is concerned not only with the limits of our government’s power to protect us, but also with how it protects us. Government can protect us by passing laws that grant powers to its agencies or by conferring discretion on the officers in those agencies. Security by law is preferable to the extent that it promotes rule of law values—certainty, predictability, uniformity, and so on—but, security by discretion is preferable to the extent that it gives government the room it needs to meet threats in whatever form they present themselves. Drawing a line between security by law and …

Why Federal Courts Apply The Law Of Nations Even Though It Is Not The Supreme Law Of The Land, Anthony J. Bellia Jr., Bradford R. Clark

Journal Articles

We are grateful to the judges and scholars who participated in this Symposium examining our book, The Law of Nations and the United States Constitution. One of our goals in writing this book was to reinvigorate and advance the debate over the role of customary international law in U.S. courts. The papers in this Symposium advance this debate by deepening understandings of how the Constitution interacts with customary international law. Our goal in this Article is to address two questions raised by this Symposium that go to the heart of the status of the law of nations under the Constitution. …

Proximate Vs. Geographic Limits On Patent Damages, Stephen Yelderman

Journal Articles

The exclusive rights of a U.S. patent are limited in two important ways. First, a patent has a technical scope—only the products and methods set out in the patent’s claims may constitute infringement. Second, a patent has a geographic scope—making, using, or selling the products or methods described in the patent’s claims will only constitute infringement if that activity takes place in the United States. These boundaries are foundational features of the patent system: there can be no liability for U.S. patent infringement without an act that falls within both the technical and geographic scope of the patent.

Precedent And Constitutional Structure, Randy J. Kozel

Journal Articles

The Constitution does not talk about precedent, at least not explicitly, but several of its features suggest a place for deference to prior decisions. It isolates the judicial function and insulates federal courts from official and electoral control, promoting a vision of impersonality and continuity. It charges courts with applying a charter that is vague and ambiguous in important respects. And it was enacted at a time when prominent thinkers were already discussing the use of precedent to channel judicial discretion. Taken in combination, these features make deference to precedent a sound inference from the Constitution’s structure, text, and historical …

Irreconcilable Differences? Whole Woman’S Health, Gonzales, And Justice Kennedy’S Vision Of American Abortion Jurisprudence, O. Carter Snead, Laura Wolk

Journal Articles

A law is unconstitutional if it "has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus."' Twenty-five years have elapsed since a plurality of the Supreme Court articulated this undue burden standard in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, yet its contours remain elusive. Notably, two current members of the Court-Justice Breyer and Justice Kennedy-seem to fundamentally differ in their understanding of what Casey requires and permits. In Gonzales v. Carhart, Justice Kennedy emphasized a wide range of permissible state interests implicated by abortion and indicated …

Justice Scalia, Implied Rights Of Action, And Historical Practice, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.

Journal Articles

In the realm of Federal Courts, the question of “implied rights of action” asks when, if ever, may a plaintiff bring a federal right of action for the violation of a federal statute that does not expressly create one. Justice Scalia argued that a court should not entertain an action for damages for the violation of a federal statute unless the text of the statute demonstrates that Congress meant to create a right of action. The Supreme Court adopted this approach in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, with Justice Scalia writing for the majority. Certain judges and scholars have argued …